In a landmark decision, the court has ruled in favor of Dr. William Bay, marking a significant win for those questioning mainstream COVID Vaccine narratives. This comes after a lengthy legal battle against the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board of Australia, who unjustly suspended Dr. Bay’s registration as a general practitioner because he spoke out against the COVID vaccines.
I shared a clip of Dr. William Bay from a few years ago when he boldly spoke out against experimental mRNA gene therapy, often mislabeled as “vaccines,” to a group of uncomfortable indoctrinated doctors at a medical conference. You can view the original clip in this thread (Point Number 8) or read the entire transcript to see how the pharmaceutical industry subtly “indoctrinates” doctors.
[LINK]
Dr. Bay, known for his outspoken views on COVID-19 experimental vaccines, faced severe consequences, including a medical license suspension. However, the court found that the suspension decision was marred by bias and procedural unfairness. It's a clear call to joy for the medical-truth community that has long advocated for transparency and fairness in healthcare regulations.
In his statement following the judgment, Dr. Bay did not hold back: "So, if I wasn't clear before AHPRA, let me be very clear now. The vaccines are bad. The vaccines are no good. And people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines." His reinstatement means he can openly criticize vaccines without fear, a bold move that sets a precedent for other practitioners who wish to express their concerns freely.
The comprehensive ruling by Justice Bradley not only reinstates Dr. Bay’s medical license but also holds AHPRA accountable for the legal costs incurred throughout the proceedings. Dr. Bay is now free to practice medicine once again, which includes the ability to prescribe treatments like Ivermectin, a pharma bashed controversial but crucial option in his toolkit.
The ruling declared that decisions made by AHPRA and the Board were invalid, thus freeing Dr. Bay from the unjust limitations placed on his medical practice. The court pointed out several flaws, including a lack of evidence supporting any claims of misconduct and a failure to provide Dr. Bay a fair chance to defend himself. This legal validation suggests that AHPRA and the Board might have acted more out of political motivation than genuine public safety concerns.
For Dr. Bay, this isn’t just about regaining his right to practice medicine—it’s a triumph of his voice against bureaucratic overreach and a testimony to standing firm on one’s beliefs. And for the wider community, this verdict is a hopeful pointer to the necessity for accountability and fairness in the regulation of medical professionals.
Given the court's findings, Dr. Bay should consider pursuing legal action for damages against AHPRA for the loss of income and potential harm to his reputation during this prolonged suspension. The court’s decision implicitly supports the view that he was unfairly treated, opening the door for further legal redress and, perhaps, compensation for the unwarranted impact on his career.
This verdict shines a light on the critical importance of rights to a fair hearing and underscores the role of rigorous judicial oversight to prevent the misuse of regulatory power.
Congratulations to Dr. Bay on this vindication—his case serves as a powerful reminder that justice, although sometimes delayed, is indeed achievable!
SOURCE TO FULL COURT JUDGEMENT
Signing off for now
A17
Share this post